Not mad at all

It ought to be obvious to everyone by now that it simply isn't possible to stop audio and video content being freely distributed, and the challenge is how to generate revenue around that fact of modern-day life.

Recently The Guardian reported on the Monty Python response (Now for something completely different):

"For three years you YouTubers have been ripping us off, taking tens of thousands of our videos and putting them up on YouTube."

So begins one of the current hottest viral videos. It stars the Monty Python team, and explains why they have decided to stop attempts to remove the illegally uploaded videos on YouTube - and have instead signed up to the site's Video ID system, which identifies rights holders' material and allows them to choose to have it either removed from the site, or have adverts attached to it.

The Pythons have decided on the second option. And, while a year ago the industry might have thought this was one of the team's characteristically absurd plots, the Video ID system is becoming well-established. More than 300 companies have signed up since its launch (six months ago in the UK, nearer to 12 in the US), including Sony Music International, AFP, Electronic Arts and CBS. The vast majority of those rights holders - 90% of them - are choosing, like the Pythons, to place ads around the content.

However, the Guardian writer still seems not to have quite got it:

And there is method in the Pythonesque madness of giving away valuable content for free - Monty Python's DVD sales are up more than 1,000% following the launch of their YouTube channel, and that's on Amazon alone. Fans must have been listening to the Python message: "We want you to click on links and buy our movies and TV shows. Only this will soften our pain and disgust at being ripped off all these years ..."

It's not madness at all, it's common sense.  You can't stop people accessing your content for free, but you can give them the opportunity to pay for something. 

Comments

[fumier]

"Sales are up more than 1,000% following the launch of their YouTube channel, and that's on Amazon alone." Use of the word "alone" in this context, while common, demonstrates complete innumeracy or shoddy journalism (or both) as it suggests that, when you include the percentage increase from other outlets, the overall increase in sales will necessarily be higher (more than 1,000%).

If the Guardian had said "only on Amazon", that would be better, since it would suggest that Amazon might somehow be an extreme, but clearly the suggestion here is that if you add lots of percentages, each of them relating to a part of the whole (and therefore having only a fractional effect on the total percentage), then the percentage increase of the whole will be the sum of those percentages.